-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[HGCAL] Introduce SimTracksters linking #35158
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35158/25087
|
A new Pull Request was created by @lecriste (Leonardo Cristella) for master. It involves the following packages:
@andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @jfernan2, @slava77, @jpata, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ff9c09/18328/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
@lecriste are differences like I am confused from your PR description: |
@jfernan2 yes, those differences are expected:
In a following PR, we will fill the same Validation plots with the sibling SimTracksters collection and the metrics will improve again.
I meant that "No changes are expected in the output except for the Validation section concerned", sorry for not being clear. Shall I clarify the PR description? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No reco differences observed, good. I agree that the description might be clarified to mention that the Validation particles in DQM are expected to change.
Minor code comments inline.
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35158/25107
|
Pull request #35158 was updated. @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @jfernan2, @slava77, @jpata, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
@smuzaffar FYI this patch is incorrect. |
@lecriste I am lookin in to it. |
looks like a bug in clang-tidy
I will open a bug report with llvm if it not already there |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ff9c09/18357/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
+upgrade
|
+reconstruction
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
This PR:
No changes are expected in the output except for the "TSToCP_linking" DQM Validation section.
PR validation:
runTheMatrix -l limited